Chinese government IS backing Bitcoin?!?!

[crazy_rabbit]

A good morning read:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-14/chinas-state-press-calls-for-building-a-de-americanized-world

China's state press calls for building a "De-Americanized" world.

Get this though, part of China's proposal is:

Key among its proposals: the creation of a new international reserve currency to replace the present reliance on U.S. dollars, a necessary step to prevent American bumbling from further afflicting the world, the commentary suggests.

Could this be Bitcoin and the thinking behind China's embrace of Bitcoin?

[1715004604]

1715004604

[1715004604]

1715004604

[1715004604]

1715004604

[Akka]

Could this be Bitcoin and the thinking behind China's embrace of Bitcoin?

Doubt it. Bitcoin IMO has the Potential, but it isn't nearly big enough to even be on the Table.

They are probaly thinking more in the direction of a currency like the Euro only bigger. The Worldo 

[crazy_rabbit]

Could this be Bitcoin and the thinking behind China's embrace of Bitcoin?

Doubt it. Bitcoin IMO has the Potential, but it isn't nearly big enough to even be on the Table.

They are probaly thinking more in the direction of a currency like the Euro only bigger. The Worldo 

Interestingly the article notes that China said the same thing back in 2009:

Back in March 2009, China’s central bank governor, Zhou Xiaochuan, also called for the creation of a new reserve currency, albeit in less heated language. The world needs a new “super-sovereign reserve currency” to replace the current reliance on the dollar, Zhou wrote in a paper published on the People’s Bank of China’s website (Zhou still heads the bank). The goal, he wrote, is to “create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run.”

A "“super-sovereign reserve currency”". Bitcoin. :-)

[forbun]

2009 is also when Bitcoin launched. 

Coincidence?

China invented every major form of currency. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/09/china-invented-every-single-major-form-of-currency-metal-coins-paper-money-and-fiat-currency-and-seized-gold-six-centuries-before-fdr.html

Wouldn't surprise me if they invented Bitcoin, too.

Maybe Satoshi Nakamoto is Chinese, but chose a Japanese pen name to divert suspicion. Since China and Japan aren't the greatest of friends.

[crazy_rabbit]

2009 is also when Bitcoin launched.  

Coincidence?

Thats the greatest Bitcoin Conspiracy theory yet.

EDIT: and maybe Satoshi is the Central Bank of China.

[SpaceJelly]

2009 is also when Bitcoin launched.  

Coincidence?

Thats the greatest Bitcoin Conspiracy theory yet.

EDIT: and maybe Satoshi is the Central Bank of China.

Wow, if your edit is correct......

[r3wt]

2009 is also when Bitcoin launched.  

Coincidence?

Thats the greatest Bitcoin Conspiracy theory yet.

EDIT: and maybe Satoshi is the Central Bank of China.

holy balls batman!

[klaus]

Doubt it. Bitcoin IMO has the Potential, but it isn't nearly big enough to even be on the Table.

Could you imagine that germany would become the legal pioneer of the world for bitcoin? Me not.

So everything seems possibel for me. bitcoin might be on the table.

[waqas]

Doubt it. Bitcoin IMO has the Potential, but it isn't nearly big enough to even be on the Table.

Could you imagine that germany would become the legal pioneer of the world for bitcoin? Me not.

So everything seems possibel for me. bitcoin might be on the table.

yes many countries now going to legalize this and its very helpful for this currency but still need too much time

[pand70]

People see what they want to see... The article has absolutely nothing to do with bitcoins...

[kik1977]

Could this be Bitcoin and the thinking behind China's embrace of Bitcoin?

Doubt it. Bitcoin IMO has the Potential, but it isn't nearly big enough to even be on the Table.

Not yet!

[Mike Christ]

If you believe China's going to adopt Bitcoin, you've yet to understand exactly what the point of politics is.

China is making its own currency.  China will be in full control of issuing this currency.  China doesn't care for a currency it cannot exploit.

Key among its proposals: the creation of a new international reserve currency to replace the present reliance on U.S. dollars, a necessary step to prevent American bumbling from further afflicting the world, the commentary suggests.

If it so happens that China uses the Bitcoin protocol, I will be the last man alive to use their altcoin.

[hulk]

China would prefer gold then Bitcoin, they always give me the impression that Chinese loves gold.

[Zakryze]

haha shiny shiny gold. North Korea is trying to plunder massive amounts of foreign currency in their "room 39" maybe they tag-team the $ now!
CONSPIRACIES

[David Rabahy]

If/when a single Satoshi now moves out of one of the original addresses then the reaction will be huge.

Is it provably possible to create an address with a private key that is not known?  If so then a seriously stabilizing gesture would be to transfer a significant quantity of the original Bitcoins into it; whatever is not moved can then be assumed to be in play and the valuation/confidence in Bitcoin established correspondingly.  Such a gesture is much easier to recover from now rather than later.

I do not begrudge Satoshi his reward at all; he/she/they should make clear their intent soon rather than leaving the future of their reward in this unknown state.  If their security is ever compromised then they could be coerced at gun point to give up control.

Imagine the capitalization of Bitcoin jumps to $10 or even $100 billion USD and then a transaction comes in touching an original address.  The ensuing panic would be huge.  The exchange rate could drop to half or less in a very short period.

Satoshi, thank you very much; your contribution to the human race is beyond measure.  Please provide a definitive act to settle the position of your original reward.

[Koekiemonster]

If you believe China's going to adopt Bitcoin, you've yet to understand exactly what the point of politics is.

China is making its own currency.  China will be in full control of issuing this currency.  China doesn't care for a currency it cannot exploit.

From the same article:

The goal, he wrote, is to “create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run.”

So far for full control of this currency as you're saying.

I don't think they're speaking of Bitcoin though, but Bitocin seems to be a good fit.

[theonewhowaskazu]

Since the Chinese are incapable of making their own currency work, and have to constantly deal in USD, if I was the chinese government I wouldn't try to destroy another currency that doesn't just pass that power from the US to another different world power (like the Euro, etc...).

[FeedbackLoop]

China has been arguing for something linked to a basket of standard fiat currencies for international settlements for a while.

Doubt this new development is something other than that.

[wormbog]

Satoshi, thank you very much; your contribution to the human race is beyond measure.  Please provide a definitive act to settle the position of your original reward.

Satoshi told me via PM that his stash is set aside as a reward for whoever invents time travel so he can save his fiancee from a fatal car crash. Details to be made public when the USD exchange rate hits $1000/XBT. You didn't hear it from me.

[cypherdoc]

of course it's not a new argument but then again they've never had such a new tool.

[rebuilder]

Is it provably possible to create an address with a private key that is not known?  

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

Like this one? Technically, you can't prove the private key isn't known but realistically, no-one can brute force a string that long.

[David Rabahy]

Is it provably possible to create an address with a private key that is not known?  

http://blockexplorer.com/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

Like this one? Technically, you can't prove the private key isn't known but realistically, no-one can brute force a string that long.

What's the public key?

[rebuilder]

1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE is the public key. Apparently, you can send coins to any address as long as the checksum at the end of the address is valid for the address.

[David Rabahy]

Oh!  The address *is* the public key; who knew?

Per https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE, that address is attributed with holgero  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27019;sa=showPosts.

Perfect.

Satoshi, please dump a significant portion of your original reward into it and take the latent concern out of the system.

Or, we could try to find volunteers willing to pay Satoshi and then they dump them.  I'm willing to donate 0.5 BTC to the cause.  How can I get the 0.5 BTC from Satoshi and guarantee I will dump it atomically?

[rebuilder]

Honestly, if we're talking about making Bitcoin acceptable to governments as a reserve currency, there are many more bumps in the road than just Satoshi's holdings. Apart from what I'd expect to be a general unpalatability for governments, there are other relatively large holders, too. I currently see government's embracing decentralized cryptocurrencies only slightly before they stop taxing people, but should the unthinkable occur, I still don't see why any government would elect not to roll their own alt.

[crazy_rabbit]

Oh!  The address *is* the public key; who knew?

Per https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE, that address is attributed with holgero  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=27019;sa=showPosts.

Perfect.

Satoshi, please dump a significant portion of your original reward into it and take the latent concern out of the system.

Or, we could try to find volunteers willing to pay Satoshi and then they dump them.  I'm willing to donate 0.5 BTC to the cause.  How can I get the 0.5 BTC from Satoshi and guarantee I will dump it atomically?

You're theory seems to be based on the fact that people don't want to reward Satoshi for the second coming of money. Why should people care if he dumps the coins? More for everyone else, no? It's not like Bitcoin stops working if he sells all his coins. Besides, it's not like he would move them onto MtGOX and do a market order. More likely he's sell to Citibank or something in a lump sum.

[David Rabahy]

This does not solve my previous question but the previous question made me think of it.  How does one construct a transaction like the following?;

Alice and Bob both send X BTC to an address atomically

We do this at restaurants all the time; put two VISA cards on the bill and ask the waitress to split it 50/50.

If such a transaction can be constructed then an alternative proposal would be to have Satoshi and other volunteers co-dump enough Bitcoins into an address without a known public key to reduce the latent concern in the system.

I'd be delighted to see Satoshi get every penny they've earned and more.  Satoshi may be trustable not to dump significant portions of their holdings but the temptation to coerce them will only increase as the value of Bitcoin increases.

*Any* Bitcoin holder with enough value ought to be of a concern.  If the Winklevoss's were publicly coerced into giving up their Bitcoins then we would see them move on the block chain and know the destination addresses were under the control of bad guys.  But if they are coerced privately then we wouldn't know.  The Winklevosses are public figures and it wouldn't take long to realize they had been coerced.  Satoshi is utterly private.  We would have no idea whether he/she/they were being coerced or not.  The movement of Bitcoins out of Satoshi holdings at an unexpected/unannounced time would be disruptive.

A significant off-market transaction will eventually be noticed and confidence will swing, perhaps wildly, on the news.

[darkmule]

If such a transaction can be constructed then an alternative proposal would be to have Satoshi and other volunteers co-dump enough Bitcoins into an address without a known public key to reduce the latent concern in the system.

I assume you mean a known PRIVATE key, since you couldn't transfer ANYTHING to an "unknown public key."

Also, why on earth would anyone throw away an enormous amount of money in return for nothing?

[greyhawk]

Satoshi, thank you very much; your contribution to the human race is beyond measure.  Please provide a definitive act to settle the position of your original reward.

Satoshi told me via PM that his stash is set aside as a reward for whoever invents time travel so he can save his fiancee from a fatal car crash. Details to be made public when the USD exchange rate hits $1000/XBT. You didn't hear it from me.

Will he have to go and do battle with Satans lieutenants to prevent an early eschaton?

[David Rabahy]

Yep, private.

Such a tremendous loss of Bitcoins would be to benefit the whole Bitcoin ecosystems by reducing the concern of the very large stash of old/stale coins suddenly being transacted back into action.

I could create a charitable organization such that donations to it can be deducted.  All donations would be used to match Satoshi dumps of vulnerable caches.  Win, win; Bitcoin goes up in value, contributors get an income tax deduction.

Satoshi could die unexpectedly/suddenly without having prepared to pass their fortune on to their beneficiaries.  This could happen without anyone knowing.  The reward coins would be unknowingly lost.  However, the fear/risk would remain.  If/when the news did get out then a worldwide treasure hunt for the scrap of paper (it matters not if they ever existed or not) with the private keys could create mayhem.  Even if the keys are passed on there's no guarantee the beneficiaries would be as benevolent as Satoshi has been so far.

After a long enough period of time no one will actively worry about such things; well it might make a nice plot element in some future novel.  This would just make the shock greater; concerns that a flaw in Bitcoin had been discovered as opposed to Satoshi just waking up to collect their well-deserved reward.

[darkmule]

So this is still puzzling me.  Suppose (a lowball estimate) Satoshi has 250K in BTC.  That would be, at current Gox value, about $37,500,000.

He's supposed to torch $37.5 million so you can subjectively feel better?

This plan seems to raise concerns of realistic, rational behavior.

[crazy_rabbit]

Yep, private.

Such a tremendous loss of Bitcoins would be to benefit the whole Bitcoin ecosystems by reducing the concern of the very large stash of old/stale coins suddenly being transacted back into action.

I could create a charitable organization such that donations to it can be deducted.  All donations would be used to match Satoshi dumps of vulnerable caches.  Win, win; Bitcoin goes up in value, contributors get an income tax deduction.

Satoshi could die unexpectedly/suddenly without having prepared to pass their fortune on to their beneficiaries.  This could happen without anyone knowing.  The reward coins would be unknowingly lost.  However, the fear/risk would remain.  If/when the news did get out then a worldwide treasure hunt for the scrap of paper (it matters not if they ever existed or not) with the private keys could create mayhem.  Even if the keys are passed on there's no guarantee the beneficiaries would be as benevolent as Satoshi has been so far.

After a long enough period of time no one will actively worry about such things; well it might make a nice plot element in some future novel.  This would just make the shock greater; concerns that a flaw in Bitcoin had been discovered as opposed to Satoshi just waking up to collect their well-deserved reward.

I don't understand why you're so nervous about some people having so much money. If they spend it, they will dilute their wealth, more coins for other people. It's fine, even if they have tons of it, it's still fine. Unless you have as many coins as Satoshi, Bitcoin is more important to him then it is to you. Think about it, you're worried they might not be benevolent, but they have more to worry about then you do. They are more heavily invested.

[Minor Miner]

If/when a single Satoshi now moves out of one of the original addresses then the reaction will be huge.

Is it provably possible to create an address with a private key that is not known?  If so then a seriously stabilizing gesture would be to transfer a significant quantity of the original Bitcoins into it; whatever is not moved can then be assumed to be in play and the valuation/confidence in Bitcoin established correspondingly.  Such a gesture is much easier to recover from now rather than later.

I do not begrudge Satoshi his reward at all; he/she/they should make clear their intent soon rather than leaving the future of their reward in this unknown state.  If their security is ever compromised then they could be coerced at gun point to give up control.

Imagine the capitalization of Bitcoin jumps to $10 or even $100 billion USD and then a transaction comes in touching an original address.  The ensuing panic would be huge.  The exchange rate could drop to half or less in a very short period.

Satoshi, thank you very much; your contribution to the human race is beyond measure.  Please provide a definitive act to settle the position of your original reward.

What???

[David Rabahy]

So this is still puzzling me.  Suppose (a lowball estimate) Satoshi has 250K in BTC.  That would be, at current Gox value, about $37,500,000.

He's supposed to torch $37.5 million so you can subjectively feel better?

This plan seems to raise concerns of realistic, rational behavior.

Oh, I thought I read somewhere it was more like 40% of all Bitcoins were in Satoshi's hands.

If it is *only* more like 2% or something then I stand corrected.

Satoshi, you can keep your Bitcoins, it's ok; I feel better.

[hathmill]

A good morning read:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-14/chinas-state-press-calls-for-building-a-de-americanized-world

China's state press calls for building a "De-Americanized" world.

Get this though, part of China's proposal is:

Key among its proposals: the creation of a new international reserve currency to replace the present reliance on U.S. dollars, a necessary step to prevent American bumbling from further afflicting the world, the commentary suggests.

Could this be Bitcoin and the thinking behind China's embrace of Bitcoin?

,


I think they want to see a basket of currencies where gold is one of the monies. There are SDRs but Imm not sure to what extent China could gain enough influence over that one since they are issued by IMF (if I remeber correctly) and IMF is owned by US. Actually what I think they want is to keep a strong dollarr, devalue against it and hedging it by allocation of hard money and assets and then when they could have a super strong currency and when imports has become expencieve they will let their own currency appreciate soso they can buy the world assets for cheap and borrow at loww rates. I think thats their long term plan and Bitcoin a blackswan. Nothing bad with Chineese people getting some Bitcoins and hard money though. Much better then if Chineese hoard dollars II dont think the gov want them to do that.

[hathmill]

If China built Bitcoin they would _never_ put a Japanese name on it. They are not like super good ol friends those two.

[darkmule]

Oh, I thought I read somewhere it was more like 40% of all Bitcoins were in Satoshi's hands.

I've seen estimates from around 150K BTC to over 1 million, but much more than that is pretty unlikely, considering the period of time when Satoshi was mining (under that name).  While presumably he (or they) could have been mining subsequent to that time under other names, by that time, there were enough other miners that any one of them monopolizing the supply was pretty much out of the question.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Just realized if DPR were forced to give up the password somehow, he could just activate a deadman's switch sending his entire cold wallet to the BitcoinEater address. It'd be like the end of the movie Independence Day.

[darkmule]

Just realized if DPR were forced to give up the password somehow, he could just activate a deadman's switch sending his entire cold wallet to the BitcoinEater address. It'd be like the end of the movie Independence Day.

Since giving up the password would probably be part of some kind of deal, unless DPR is a complete idiot, nuking the wallet with some trickery would pretty much break the deal and subject him to whatever consequences the feds threatened.

[thecomputerscientist]

Thought experiment: Suppose the Chinese government approaches the Winkelvoss brothers and say:
"Hey, we'll buy half of your Bitcoins for $1 billion (which is a crappy price), but in return we'll officially safe guard Bitcoin as a currency."
If you were the Winklevoss, would you take the deal?

[nobbynobbynoob]

Thought experiment: Suppose the Chinese government approaches the Winkelvoss brothers and say:
"Hey, we'll buy half of your Bitcoins for $1 billion (which is a crappy price), but in return we'll officially safe guard Bitcoin as a currency."
If you were the Winklevoss, would you take the deal?

I don't know, but thanks for reminding me that 20k USD/BTC is a "crappy price".

[theonewhowaskazu]

If China built Bitcoin they would _never_ put a Japanese name on it. They are not like super good ol friends those two.

If they didn't want people to know its them, they might, just so people would think what you just said.

[DoomDumas]

Could this be Bitcoin and the thinking behind China's embrace of Bitcoin?

Doubt it. Bitcoin IMO has the Potential, but it isn't nearly big enough to even be on the Table.

They are probaly thinking more in the direction of a currency like the Euro only bigger. The Worldo 

Not big enough ??

Look at the hash power..  also there already billions maybe trillions of satoshi in circulation.

How this can not be big enough ?

Bitcoin is digital gold, remove the need of fiat currency and paper gold..

I dont know if it will be used by chinese govt, but imo, it's the best option availlable so far

[Vycid]

Thought experiment: Suppose the Chinese government approaches the Winkelvoss brothers and say:
"Hey, we'll buy half of your Bitcoins for $1 billion (which is a crappy price), but in return we'll officially safe guard Bitcoin as a currency."
If you were the Winklevoss, would you take the deal?

The Chinese government is pretty crafty, they tend not to pay over 100x the market price for things.

[waxwing]

Thought experiment: Suppose the Chinese government approaches the Winkelvoss brothers and say:
"Hey, we'll buy half of your Bitcoins for $1 billion (which is a crappy price), but in return we'll officially safe guard Bitcoin as a currency."
If you were the Winklevoss, would you take the deal?

The Chinese government is pretty crafty, they tend not to pay over 100x the market price for things.

It's not that simple. The market price for 1BTC may be $145 or whatever, but the market price for 500,000 BTC is far higher - because there just aren't that many offers on the world's order books. If you vacuum up the entire book, and then vacuum up all the offers that appear while you're doing that ... then the theoretical price is infinity since right now nobody is offering that much.

If they did indeed want to buy the entire Winklevoss stash, then the Winklevii could certainly reasonably demand a number far higher than the current market price.

This issue is called liquidity, and it's the reason why there aren't more very rich people piling into bitcoin yet (surely some of them see its potential).

[phillipsjk]

2009 is also when Bitcoin launched.  

Coincidence?

Thats the greatest Bitcoin Conspiracy theory yet.

EDIT: and maybe Satoshi is the Central Bank of China.

I like this theory better than the CIA theory (my previous favorite theory)

[hulk]

Sell while its high, China are famous for buy and dump strategy...

[Johnny Bitcoinseed]

Bitcoin shows the world that governments are no longer needed when it comes to currency.

And that, my friends, is the beauty of Bitcoin.

[Vycid]

Thought experiment: Suppose the Chinese government approaches the Winkelvoss brothers and say:
"Hey, we'll buy half of your Bitcoins for $1 billion (which is a crappy price), but in return we'll officially safe guard Bitcoin as a currency."
If you were the Winklevoss, would you take the deal?

The Chinese government is pretty crafty, they tend not to pay over 100x the market price for things.

It's not that simple. The market price for 1BTC may be $145 or whatever, but the market price for 500,000 BTC is far higher - because there just aren't that many offers on the world's order books. If you vacuum up the entire book, and then vacuum up all the offers that appear while you're doing that ... then the theoretical price is infinity since right now nobody is offering that much.

If they did indeed want to buy the entire Winklevoss stash, then the Winklevii could certainly reasonably demand a number far higher than the current market price.

This issue is called liquidity, and it's the reason why there aren't more very rich people piling into bitcoin yet (surely some of them see its potential).

The differential is not going to be more than 10% of spot. The Winklevii are not the only guys holding large amounts of Bitcoin.

Remember too that liquidity is a double-edged sword; if an early adopter wants to get out, or an ASIC mining company wants cash, they can't dump all their coins at once for the current market price.

So an eager buyer just needs an eager seller and they can end up pretty damn near spot.

Alternatively, you can just manipulate the market. Accumulate slowly over large periods of time, then aggressively dump some of the accumulated coins at the scariest moments possible before continuing to accumulate.

Kinda like how China is increasing their gold reserves, actually.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-13/chart-day-china-imports-over-2000-tons-gold-last-two-years

[cowandtea]

Bitcoin shows the world that governments are no longer needed when it comes to currency.

And that, my friends, is the beauty of Bitcoin.

Well, if governments are no longer needed then we need someone to pay policeman's salary, street cleanup and etc. Who will be doing those job if there is no government?

[TheButterZone]

People.

[bg002h]

Bitcoin shows the world that governments are no longer needed when it comes to currency.

And that, my friends, is the beauty of Bitcoin.

Well, if governments are no longer needed then we need someone to pay policeman's salary, street cleanup and etc. Who will be doing those job if there is no government?

There was a time, in the us at least, when there was private services for things like fire fighting...the fact that governments supply this service at high cost under monopoly conditions and accept payment only in paper does not intrinsically make the government useful or irreplaceable.

[crazy_rabbit]

Bitcoin shows the world that governments are no longer needed when it comes to currency.

And that, my friends, is the beauty of Bitcoin.

Well, if governments are no longer needed then we need someone to pay policeman's salary, street cleanup and etc. Who will be doing those job if there is no government?

There was a time, in the us at least, when there was private services for things like fire fighting...the fact that governments supply this service at high cost under monopoly conditions and accept payment only in paper does not intrinsically make the government useful or irreplaceable.

There will be a government. There was a government before income tax for example, and if that ever stops (it won't) there will be a government after too. They can tax you for breathing air you know. They don't HAVE to have their hands on your money.

[darkmule]

There was a time, in the us at least, when there was private services for things like fire fighting...the fact that governments supply this service at high cost under monopoly conditions and accept payment only in paper does not intrinsically make the government useful or irreplaceable.

You picked a particularly terrible example.  Under this idiotic regime, hose connections were incompatible, because they were proprietary, and when a particularly large fire would have required the assistance of other departments, they were unable to do so because they couldn't even connect their hoses to the hydrant at the scene of the fire.

Sometimes, these fires were started by "uninsured" houses.  Because they hadn't paid for the service, of course, the private service wouldn't come to their assistance.  So when one of these went wild, you could very well end up with your house burned down even though you had paid for the service, because your neighbor had not.  And when the fire was particularly large, other local fire services with incompatible equipment could not assist.  (Actually, to some extent, incompatible hose couplings still exist, mostly an artifact of the past situation, but FDs generally cooperate to have adapters available when this arises.)

So in such a regime, I could have fire service, but my neighbors could not, and my property value would still be substantially damaged if neighboring homes burned down, blighting the neighborhood.  This is assuming my house doesn't end up burned down itself because of the fire spreading from unprotected houses.  To get the full benefit of such a regime, I would have to pay for protection for all my neighbors, clearly unfair to me and probably beyond my means.

This is why things like fire protection, police protection and national defense are considered "public goods."  There is no way to exclude someone who refuses to pay from, for instance, being protected from foreign invasion, so someone able simply to refuse to pay would be a free rider on the generosity of others.  Conversely, the refuseniks in a fire protection regime cause damage even to those willing to pay, who then do not receive the benefit of what they purchase.  

Despite the fact that the cost is modest for a reasonable level of fire protection on the individual level, it would be priced exorbitantly if a single or a few individuals had to foot the bill for the protection of all, which is necessary for any effective protection.

I have never seen a rational response from a libertarian extremist as to how to address the public goods problem, or how it would be a good thing to let entire cities burn to the ground because of the refuseniks, who presumably would have these very extremist libertarians among their number.

[David Rabahy]

If I live in a densely populated area then of course shared services make a ton of sense.

If I live in a sparsely populated area then of course shared services make way less sense.

A community (not an entire nation per se) could be responsible for many shared services.  Only a nation can reasonably be responsible for certain shared services, e.g. defense.

It seems very reasonable that adjacent communities might cooperate on some shared services.

Individuals would choose which community they want to reside in, in part based on the quality of shared services.

Perhaps these seem like simple truisms, but too often I observe folks assuming the only answer is one central government providing all shared services.  Perhaps the unspoken assumption is economy of scale?  What gets forgotten is the larger the government the greater the risk of mismanagement and corruption.

[tom.hashemi]

There was a time, in the us at least, when there was private services for things like fire fighting...the fact that governments supply this service at high cost under monopoly conditions and accept payment only in paper does not intrinsically make the government useful or irreplaceable.

You picked a particularly terrible example.  Under this idiotic regime, hose connections were incompatible, because they were proprietary, and when a particularly large fire would have required the assistance of other departments, they were unable to do so because they couldn't even connect their hoses to the hydrant at the scene of the fire.

Sometimes, these fires were started by "uninsured" houses.  Because they hadn't paid for the service, of course, the private service wouldn't come to their assistance.  So when one of these went wild, you could very well end up with your house burned down even though you had paid for the service, because your neighbor had not.  And when the fire was particularly large, other local fire services with incompatible equipment could not assist.  (Actually, to some extent, incompatible hose couplings still exist, mostly an artifact of the past situation, but FDs generally cooperate to have adapters available when this arises.)

So in such a regime, I could have fire service, but my neighbors could not, and my property value would still be substantially damaged if neighboring homes burned down, blighting the neighborhood.  This is assuming my house doesn't end up burned down itself because of the fire spreading from unprotected houses.  To get the full benefit of such a regime, I would have to pay for protection for all my neighbors, clearly unfair to me and probably beyond my means.

This is why things like fire protection, police protection and national defense are considered "public goods."  There is no way to exclude someone who refuses to pay from, for instance, being protected from foreign invasion, so someone able simply to refuse to pay would be a free rider on the generosity of others.  Conversely, the refuseniks in a fire protection regime cause damage even to those willing to pay, who then do not receive the benefit of what they purchase.  

Despite the fact that the cost is modest for a reasonable level of fire protection on the individual level, it would be priced exorbitantly if a single or a few individuals had to foot the bill for the protection of all, which is necessary for any effective protection.

I have never seen a rational response from a libertarian extremist as to how to address the public goods problem, or how it would be a good thing to let entire cities burn to the ground because of the refuseniks, who presumably would have these very extremist libertarians among their number.

+1 Nice to see a solid response to some of the libertarian silliness flying around

[jbreher]

I am sorry to say that I find darkmule's rhetoric somewhat silly. We currently have standards for firefighting equipment. Where is the economic incentive to produce or purchase equipment that is incompatible with this existing infrastructure? Answer - there is a clear DISincentive to do so.

I suppose the response to this point would be that it took governments to give us these standards. Which, while being a rebuttal, is a very weak one.

Where there is an economic incentive to standardize, standards will emerge.

As a counterexample, I would like to point out that no government owns the internet. Even something as simple as the SATA protocol, upon which most current computers are dependent, has been developed by the free market, not the government.

[arklan]

Phone chargers. Far as i know, only apple uses something besides the mini usb one. Took forever to standardize, but did so without government.

[darkmule]

I am sorry to say that I find darkmule's rhetoric somewhat silly. We currently have standards for firefighting equipment.

What rhetoric?  I just listed some facts.  Sorry you find them unpalatable.

Do you think these standards magically just originated from the ether?  Government regulations enforced them.

Where is the economic incentive to produce or purchase equipment that is incompatible with this existing infrastructure? Answer - there is a clear DISincentive to do so.

So why is that EXACTLY what happened when these standards were left to private enterprise?  

ETA:

I suppose the response to this point would be that it took governments to give us these standards. Which, while being a rebuttal, is a very weak one.

Yes, other than being true, it's terribly weak.

[jbreher]

Where is the economic incentive to produce or purchase equipment that is incompatible with this existing infrastructure? Answer - there is a clear DISincentive to do so.

So why is that EXACTLY what happened when these standards were left to private enterprise?  

Time moved forward, experience was gained, pockets of compatibility became regions of compatibility became universal compatibility. Government regulation or no, this would have occurred. That's not the work of government, that's the experience that comes from time.

Are you seriously arguing that, absent the edicts of government, all fire crews would abandon the standards that currently are in existence?

So lets talk about how governmental edict was responsible for universal 802.11 compatibility, shall we? (hint: all government did here is restrict the frequencies that could be used).

ETA: how 'bout the guiding hand of government being responsible for bitcoin?

[TheButterZone]

Government enforced the evolution of homo erectus to homo sapiens. The end. 

[BTCisthefuture]

While I agree with others who point out this article doesn't have much of anything to do with bitcoin.  I am excited to see China getting behind bitcoin.     It certainly seems that the government in China doesn't have a problem with bitcoin. From news outlets reporting on it, to Baidu starting to except it, these aren't things that happen without some sort of government approval.

[Zarathustra]

Government enforced the evolution of homo erectus to homo sapiens. The end. 

No, government enforced the evolution of homo sapiens to homo oeconomicus collectivisticus idioticus, a cartoon of the homo sapiens, who lived in self-sufficient communities without any business.

[allthingsluxury]

Regardless of whether this article is talking about bitcoin specifically or not (which I don't believe it is). It is clear that China is open to new ideas. They have made it clear they are not happy with the way the American government is performing. They have made it clear they are not happy with the endless printing of fiat dollars (in which they hold a massive position). They have allowed Baidu to accept BTC. They continue to accumulate gold at a record pace.

China is certainly preparing for change.

[crazy_rabbit]

People see what they want to see... The article has absolutely nothing to do with bitcoins...

“Such alarming days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated, and a new world
order should be put in place, according to which all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and
protected on an equal footing.”

"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,
so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."

Bitcoin or not, we are entering quite dangerous times.

One must put their faith in the Satoshis of the blockchain.